No Further Stay Condition – 8503

When applying for a waiver to the condition, it is important to understand whether the condition applied to your visa is mandatory or discretionary one.

Mandatory simply means it MUST be applied, irrespective of the applicant and the country of application.

Discretionary means it can be applied by a case officer if they believe the visa applicant is at risk of overstaying their visa.

Waiver Request

The Australian Immigration Department’s website at the link above provides grounds for requesting a waiver.

A waiver means the applicant is given permission to make an application to remain in Australia.

The Department must approve this request before the application can be made.

It is also important to remember that bridging visas are not issued against waiver requests.

If you need to remain in Australia and need to make a waiver request to remove condition 8503 from your visa, be sure to make arrangements to have your bridging visa for the time your request is with the Department.

A waiver request must also be accompanied with adequate support documentation. Strong arguments with little or no (or incorrect) documentary evidence will fail.

Finally, it deserves note that a large number of waiver requests fail. Some have zero chance of success. Others have some chance of success but may be poorly or incorrectly written. Inadequate evidence in support of arguments is also another factor why so many waiver requests fail.

Visa Refusal and Rules of Evidence – The fine line between visa grant and refusal

But not just partner visa applications!

A recent client case has come across my desk and has reminded me of how a genuine visa applicant can be refused by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection because of a simple lack of evidence to support their claims.

They were a genuine couple, deeply in love but a long history of relationship – but with very little to show of the facts of their relationship!

Evidence in the visa assessment process is critical to a positive outcome.

So many visa refusals can occur on the flimsiest of grounds by over zealous case officers because a lack of credible evidence leads to an adverse assessment that the visa applicant is simply lying or making things up.

But in so many cases this is simply not true.

Visa applicants need to understand that visa application assessments are done by humans working through a mechanical process of pass or fail against ‘grant criteria;.

Just believing that you meet the grant criteria for the visa you are applying for is a tragic mistake so many visa applicants make. This applies generally to employment, business and investment visa applicants, but even more so for partner visa applicants.

I send out a timely reminder to all readers of this blog that if you are not sure, reach out and ask!

Blogs and hearsay on what other people say worked for them does not always result in a positive visa application outcome for some. Do not risk it!

Seek the advice of a registered migration professional, such as us here at VISAFAQ or the many registered lawyers and migration agents with the Office of Migration Agents Registration Authority (OMARA can be found at www.mara.gov.au).

Remember, it is better to be safe than sorry. Visa refusal can result in wasted money, time and emotional trauma. For onshore applicants, it can result in Section 48 bar (meaning you would need to go offshore to make another application for the visa you require).

Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns about your application (pre and post application enquiries welcome).

In all my years of dealing with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection there is one thing I have learned. THEY DON’T LIKE GIVING MONEY BACK!

Visa application fee refunds are available to visa applicants on a limited set of circumstances.

The Department assessing requests for visa application fee refunds against relevant provisions in the Migration Regulations.

A number of clients have approached us to seek refunds for visa applications withdrawn for various reasons. Unfortunately, most are disappointed to learn that refunds are selectively granted in a small number of circumstances.

Refund assessments are either ‘mandatory’ or ‘discretionary’.

Refund of visa application charges are firstly assessed against mandatory provisions. If none are found to apply, then the request for refund is assessed discretionary provisions.

Mandatory Provisions

Regulation 2.12F(1)(a)(i) and 2.12F(2) of the Migration Regulations (1994) specify the mandatory provisions. These include the following.

the application wa​s ‘unnecessary’ at the time it was made;

the application is made because of a mistake made by the department;

the applicant dies before a decision is made on the application;

the application was made in Australia and was for a Tourist visa or for a Medical Treatment visa;

the application is for an employment visa but no approved nomination was made identifying the visa applicant;

the application was withdrawn because the applicant does not have an approved sponsor.

As the above shows, the mandatory provisions are quite limited.

Discretionary Provisions

Under regulations visa application charge may be refunded if the visa application is made because of a mistake made by the applicant.

This provision allows for a refund if the visa applicant mistakenly applies for the completely wrong type of visa.

This provision is intended to cover situations where the application was not ‘unnecessary at the time it was made’ but where the visa was the wrong one for their situation.

Whether a refund is made in this circumstances is solely at the absolute discretion of the departmental officer concerned.

For questions or concerns about visa application charge refunds feel free to contact us for a no obligation discussion.

Stronger measures to crack down on identity fraud have recently come into force in Australia’s immigration system.

From 22 March 2014, penalties under the so called Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4020 were increased from 3 years to 10 years. Applicants will not be able to make application for an Australian visa with PIC 4020 requirement for 10 years if there were found to have provided false information about their identity.

This restriction will also apply to individuals found to have committed identity fraud when applying for a visa previously when they are included as secondary applicants on a visa application.

The one-fails-all-fails principle will thus apply so it is essential that members of the same family unit making combined applications for a visa were not previously found to have committed identity fraud. If so, the entire family unit will be barred from making application.

The 10 year ban applies only to refusals made under the new identity requirements, not to refusals made under pre-March 22 regulations.

The 10 year period operates concurrently and not cumulatively, so that persons banned under former arrangements (3 years) will be facing 3 and 10 year bans concurrently.

As a further sign of the government’s intent to crack down on identity fraud in Australia’s visa and immigration system, the power of the Minister to waive the restrictions (either for compelling or compassionate reasons) have now been removed. The Minister will no longer have the power to waive the restrictions.

The purpose of the new arrangement is to strengthen the integrity of the migration program and deter identity fraud by introducing strict consequences where a visa application is refused because the applicant, or a member of their family unit, knowingly attempted to gain entry to Australia with fake identification.

WARNING: If you have made application for Australian visa with PIC 4020 requirement but that application has not been finally determined, and you believe you may be at risk of PIC 4020 10 year ban on reapplying for another visa, you will need to submit a correction of information form to the Department.

WARNING: UNAUTHORISED IMMIGRATION WEBSITE FOUND TO BE DEFRAUDING CLIENTS

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) recently warned of false and unauthorised websites attempting to defraud would be migrants of money and identities.

One website in particular, www.immigovau.co, mimics the current departmental website in appearance and layout, particularly when using certain browsers.

A departmental spokesman said it was a well-camouflaged fake which should be avoided. All Australian Government websites end with the country code gov.au.

“While there is no evidence that the department’s own web presence has been compromised, we advise web users who are looking for information on the department to make sure they visit the department’s official site at www.immi.gov.au,” the spokesman said.

“This issue is not unique to our department and is a common issue for companies and organisations which use websites to communicate information to their clients.”

Web users should ensure they have the www.immi.gov.au address in their browser when they are looking for information on the department and avoid this unauthorised website.

Consumers need also be care of other types of migration fraud, namely:

– Fraudulent phone calls from persons claiming to be a case officer from the DIBP, requesting credit card payments over the phone — NOTE: DIBP NEVER CALL TO REQUEST PAYMENTS OVER THE PHONE FROM CLIENTS. PAYMENTS TO DIBP ARE HANDLED BY A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SECTION TO DEPARTMENTAL UNITS WHERE CASE OFFICERS WORK.

– Promises made by unregistered (and therefore NON-REGULATED) migration agents promising Permanent Residence or making claims that they know people inside DIBP and can guarantee a positive result. NOTE: DIBP employees are carefully monitored and scrutinised for signs of corruption or bribery. Heavy sentences and lengthy jail terms are imposed on government employees found to be involved in such criminal and illegal activities. Always ask for the migration agent’s Migration Agent’s Registration Number and check it for currency against the OMARA website at www.mara.gov.au.

HOW DO DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION CASE OFFICERS ASSESS FOR BOGUS DOCUMENTS?

All forms of correspondence such as email,text messaging, blogging, letters, postcards and the like are used extensively by departmental case officers to corroborate stories, accounts, claims made in applications, etc. It is important when compiling such material as documentary evidence, such as in demonstrating relationship between sponsor and applicant, that different sources and modes of communication are used. This is a form of cross-checking you can do on the case officer’s behalf.

Traditional forms of communication such as letters are carefully analysed and scrutinised for authenticity and veracity (ie. truthfulness). Envelopes are noted for origin, date of time stamp and even style.The method of postal sending and receipt is understood in order that the case officer can make an assessment of how likely or possible a form of communication can be. For example, an applicant may claim that regular mail correspondence was sent from a certain remote location in country X to country Y. In checking the operations of the postal system in both countries and the form of postal communication used, case officers can assess the claims using this sort of background analysis.

Other things to be aware of when using traditional modes of hand writing that the level of analysis used on the paper used, thicknesses, weight, colours, sealant used on envelopes (such as glue), creases and impressions on paper etc. The same applies for analysis of the hand written word, down to type and colour of pen, pressure used by hand writer and style of writing. Comparisons are made of earlier and later forms of hand written documentation evidence to ensure consistency throughout.

Communications may also take different forms according to the cultural ideosyncrasies of the region in which the applicant resides or originates. It could be worthwhile in your dealings with the departmental case officer to point such things out in order to avoid suspicion of handling and submitting bogus documentation.

The hints, tips and tricks above are a guide only and not a definitive discussion of all methods used by the Department in checking the authenticity and validity of documentation. If unsure, seek professional advice from a MARA registered migration agent or lawyer.

HOW DO DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION CASE OFFICERS ASSESS FOR BOGUS DOCUMENTS?

As Mentioned in Part 1 of this series, heavy penalties are now being introduced by DIBP for people found to have submitted — knowingly or otherwise — false or misleading documents or proven to have filled in forms with incorrect information. PIC 4020 rules now allow for restrictions on making further visa applications of up to 10 years to be applied to individuals caught out submitting false or fraudulent — and in some cases just plain wrong — information and documentation.

The following are insights into how departmental case officers assess documents and information for falseness.

Documents such as Notice of Intended Marriage (NOIM) and Statutory Declarations are used extensively in partner visa applications in particular. These are legal documents so they need to be treated carefully and with a view to ensuring that no false or misleading information is contained within. Signatures are rigorously checked by assessing officers and cross matched with databases within the DIBP and in some cases cross departmental databases in Australia and overseas.

Forms are also checked for how many different hands have written information into individual questions. Recurring signatories are flagged for further investigation and could be the trigger for an eventual refusal.

Registraiton of notaries are also checked for current status ‘at time of application’. Unregistered notaries, agents or service providers, such as Marriage Celebrants, could render the document INVALID.

Be sure to check the current state of registration of any service provider you engage for your visa application.

If unsure, as always, seek professional migration advice from a MARA registered migration agent.

HOW DO DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION CASE OFFICERS ASSESS FOR BOGUS DOCUMENTS?

Bogus documentation is dealt with in s97 of the Migration Act (1954). Bogus documents are defined as being false in a material particular, which basically means documentation that is telling a lie or hiding the truth.

The Act defines a bogus document thus

‘in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a) purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c) was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly’

The Australian government is presently stepping up efforts to crackdown on all types of migration fraud, such as fake passports and personal identification documents. Cutting edge fraud detection technology and data matching across government departments and with international agencies is further assisting the Department with this aim of reducing, if not eliminating, all forms of migration fraud.

Aside from measures to detect fraudulent visa applications, the Australian government also announced recently the increase in penalties for persons found to be submitting bogus documentation (under the PIC 4020 rule) to dis-allow an individual from applying for another substantive visa for 10 years.

It is also important to note, that ignorance is no protection under the law.

Whether you knowingly or unwittingly submitted information or documents that were false, you can still be liable for this 10 year exclusion penalty.

It is therefore CRITICAL that when you are making application for an Australian visa that all documents (including questions you answer on application forms) submitted to the Department in support of applications are true, genuine and accurate.

If you are not sure, consult a professional migration agent or lawyer.

The following are some simple insights into the way DIBP officers deal with supporting documents and evidence when reviewing your application.

NOTE: Recent MSI (Migration Series Instruction) 292 states that there is no power in migration legislation to refuse an application because the applicant ‘may not be who they say they are or may have presented a bogus document’.

1. Rules in preparing and handling official documents – Birth, Death, Marriage Divorce Certificates – There are local ideosyncrasies and peculiarities with uch official documents. When submitting your application it will help to point this out and explain the differences that may exist. This will help to remove doubts about authenticity of documents and avoid suspicion that you are giving ‘a bogus document’.

Think of other corroborating evidence such as baptismal certificates, local religious or government registries. Be aware that the Department is aware that corruption is a problem in many local official offices. There are limits upon case officers over how deeply they can delve into your past, so if you feel the Department is breaching your privacy rights, consult a legal professional.

Like with any type of visa application, and more generally in your dealings with the Department, it is important to think outside the box and to try to pre-empt the moves of the case officer before they make a decision not favorable to you. It is a good idea to consult with a good migration agent or lawyer on this point if you do not already have an appointed representative.